As Whitman said so eloquently, "I am fill’d with them, and I will fill them in return." Thoughts, that is, about being a librarian.

Collection Development

July 02, 2009

*Note: this is my first draft (and the conclusion is not actually done) of a proposed article on web 2.0 practice in real collection development/acquisitions work. Comments and feedback are welcome!

Integrating Web 2.0 into Collection
Development Practice:
Using LibraryThing as a gift management tool

IntroductionThe library profession is inundated by articles, websites and blogs which
remind librarians to incorporate more Web 2.0 tools and techniques in order to
attract and keep users.Library instruction,
reference, and web services departments have been writing about and trying to
put web 2.0 principles into practice for several years.But what about collection development and acquisitions
work?Steven R. Harris at The University
of New Mexico writes a blog “Collections
2.0” and he articulates the idea of “collecting or collections 2.0”
principles into practice in collection development work:

“Collecting:Obviously,
the manner in which library materials are acquired. This may seem like old wine
in new bottles, but my primary notion here is that the collections are patron
driven. But more than just that, the patron … can get what they want in the
most unmediated way. It happens quickly and without a lot of rigmarole. Not even filling out requests. Just
“click”…got it…
Collections:Main idea here is that
collections behave in a 2.0
way. Reuse, repackage, mashup, user-centric, save, manipulate, interactive. And
that patrons … can talk back to the collection (and to the library/librarian)
and talk with other patrons … about their experiences and interests.
Two things there about the collections 2.0 mantra, but they have very different
implications.”

Our library struggles with this dilemma of actually putting
the principles into practice.It is one
thing to offer patrons web 2.0 tools on our websites and in our services, but
how do we do it in our acquisitions and collection development work?What are practical and useful ways to update our
traditional services?How do we actually
do either collecting or collections 2.0 work?This articles attempts to identify and explain how we put Collections 2.0 principles into practice
in our library.

One of the most challenging and time consuming services we
provide in collection development and acquisitions is the gifts and donations
program.Some libraries view it as a
curse; others see it as a boon to stretch inadequate resources.All libraries can agree that a gifts program
is a lot of work.SUNY Geneseo’s Milne
Library is no different.A public
liberal arts college which is part of the State University system in the
Genesee Valley region of upstate New York, Geneseo struggles with flat or
decreasing budgets, fluctuating serials and database costs and cuts to its
monograph allocations.Faced with a
rapidly aging collection, decrease in spending on recent publications, weeding
of the collection is at an all-time high.Seeing the need for a different approach, our solicitation and acceptance
of gifts and donations is increasing as well.How do we use gifts and donations to enhance our collection and our
budget, while putting collections 2.0 principles into practice?

The Old Way (How we used to do it)Libraries have struggled for years with the management of their gifts and
donations programs.The old way of
entering each title, author, publisher and date into a spreadsheet, writing an
acknowledgment, making decisions about keeping or discarding is cumbersome and
time consuming.Manually entering all
the book title information is labor-intensive.Depending upon the amount of materials and staff involved, many
libraries choose to only work with their gifts and donations during “slow”
times of the year.Many libraries turn
away gifts, or actively discourage donations to their collections.Dependent upon subject specialists’
expertise, many gifts sit waiting on shelves, waiting until the librarians can
find time to get around to inspecting the materials for addition to the
collection.At Geneseo, gifts and
donations were never actively solicited, but accepted with the understanding
that it might be some time before the materials actually made their way into
the collections.Patrons who generously
donated materials received an acknowledgment, but their participation ended
there, never knowing what became of the materials they donated to our library.

The New Way (how we
are doing it now)So, how do we streamline the gifts management process and incorporate web
2.0 tools to increase our visibility and participation from community?Enter LibraryThing.Remember, collections 2.0 is not just about
the tools, but how users can participate in and actively contribute to the
remaking of the library collection.LibraryThing,
founded in 2005 by Tim Spalding is a social cataloging web application,
designed to create and share library catalogs with other users on the web.Used by individuals and organizations to
catalog their books and share tags with other users, it is a unique community
of users designed around sharing and editing metadata about books.It is also an example of one way we implemented
web 2.0 principles into collection development practice at SUNY Geneseo, so as to
increase awareness of our gifts and donations.

LibraryThing helps:

1.Many of
the books can already be found in LibraryThing because bibliographic data is
imported from Amazon and Library of Congress.No need to add each individual title unless it is not already in the
catalog.

2.Tagging each gift book with a unique identifier
to identify the gift should be done with confidentiality provisions in mind,
but allows for the donation to be identified by the name if they so desire.

3.Users can participate – making the gift
collection available to the general public can be done as easy as creating an
RSS feed for the catalog.Subject
specialists can then look “virtually” at each gift title and tag books they
want to keep or get rid of.

4.Our library patrons can become involved as well
– again, using the same principles as above, the community can be invited to
participate and comment on books, by adding reviews, tags and editing the
content.

5.Using the new feature of “Collections” in
LibraryThing, libraries can differentiate gift materials from anonymous
donations, special collections, or added to the collection.Its all up to the librarian, the users and
the public.

6.LibraryThing allows you to print your catalog –
an easy way to create lists of materials for users who want documentation of
their library gift.

The benefits to this practice are enormous.Clerical staff and student workers can be
easily trained to enter materials into the LibraryThing web interface, which is
extremely intuitive.A simple search box
serves as the first step for entering title, author or simply the ISBN.Automatically, LibraryThing searches your
preferred source of data.For our
library, we choose to use Amazon as our default data source but users can
choose from over 690 other sources all over the world.Once a book is entered and selected, the user
can tag the book.At our library, we
choose to tag the items with a unique identifier that indicates to our staff
how we obtained the book, whether it was anonymous or by a particular
user.One thing to keep in mind is the
confidentiality of your patron.Always
ask upfront if the patron wants his or her name attached to the collection and
that information made public.We tag the
donated items with the patron’s initials and put them into a collection folder
available in LibraryThing.For anonymously
donated items, they go into two collections:Donated and Anonymous.Items
which go into our library collection are ultimately labeled “Milne Library
Circulating Collection”.Before adding
to the collection, we will be notifying subject librarians of collections and
titles of interest to the collection and asking for decisions to be made via
LibraryThing, such as tagging items “keep” or “send to BWB” to indicate removal
to Better World Books.

The Future Way? (conclusion,
or how we will do it in the future)So how will our library meet the future challenges of putting web 2.0
principles into practice?By thinking
about it in the terms of web 2.0 principles rather than the tools.Tim O’Reilly wrote about web 2.0 “core
competencies” in a 2005 article:

November 07, 2008

Collection Analysis and Assessment: finding the best and worst in the library collectionJennifer ArnoldDirector, Central Piedmont Community College Librarycpcc.edu/library -- Look for Policies information

First of all, we are in a tiny, tiny room in the Francis Marion Hotel; whomever did the room assignments really got this mixed up! More likely, though, its just a reflection of the overall high conference attendance. Every session I has been overcrowded, people sitting on the floor, people standing, people standing in the doorway, people standing out in the hall...

On to Jennifer's presentationOverview:Project Scope/planningDataTool selectionStaffingOutcomesTips

Origins of Project-SACS recommending eliminated older materials in its collection-bulk weeding, but wasn't appreciated by some academic departments

A New Approach"The Big Picture"-collection strengths and weaknesses-support for programs and subject areas-improving perceptions about the collection-telling the story of the collection-embracing change

Getting startedPlanning:-what did we need/want to assess about the collection?-What did we mean by 'collection'?

What did we want to know?What did we need & want to know about the collection?-age-circ, usage-relative strengths & weaknesses

Chose to use Bowker's Book Analysis-lower-division undergraduates-initial concerns about comparing our collection with other libraries-look at overall quality by how many RCL items were held-ability to compare against the core RCL collection

Staffing issues-Tech Services-Reference-Circulation-Systems

Action PlansWhat to do with this data?-weed based on the data-change our CD focus-update policies & procedures-change/improve services-communicate! *tell the story of the collection *involve the college community *make the funding arguments

What did we do???Wrote a grant-LSTA Grant : strengthening academic library collections-focused on math and science-weakness in collection-received $10,000

Collection Assessment Tips:Planning/scope-What can you do in a reasonable timeframeTheTools-automate the tools-find the tools that works for your collection or libraryStaffing-if possible, hire par-time help-re-assign existing staff time

I'm in my second full day at the Charleston Conference and am floored by the intensity and overwhelming amount of information and presentation. So many good presentations to choose from, so little time! I only wish there was more time to see more sessions. Within each concurrent session time slot, there are at least 4 or 5 sessions I'm interested in attending. Its proving to be a tough choice. Today, Tim Spalding from LibraryThing was supposed to give a talk on social cataloging; however, Tim's flight was delayed and he was stuck in Cleveland (poor guy!). Another talk was given by Andrew Pace on "webscale workflow", emphasizing the need for discontinuation of our independent silos and a more cost-effective and efficient streamlined networked library management systems he calls the webscale workflow. Here is just a sampling of some the trends & themes I'm encountering here at Charleston:

- Creation of a peer review watermark and/or symbol to indicate trustworthiness of documents and webpages on the web (a la Creative Commons symbol for copyright)

- RDA (Resource Description & Access) -- what is it, will it succeed, will it die? This is a new one to me, not being familiar with the ins and outs of cataloging, but this will have implications for us with regards to metadata and cataloging our digital content

- OCLC's WorldCat Selection to streamline ordering and acquisitions of materials via one system without having to go to multiple vendors and/or publishers and/or jobbers

- Change in Technical Services operations; reorganizing and changing workflows of Technical Services operations as our organizations change in response to new and different services and priorities

- Scholarly communication -- what does it mean for libraries, how does it impact libraries and our workflows, what do we do with Institutional repositories, scholarly content created on our campuses and digitization of this material?

- Google and the settlement with the publishers/authors -- sounds like a really complicated settlement, but it might mean the way to increased access to material all over the U.S.

July 27, 2008

Just getting back to work after a week and a half vacation -- well needed rest on the Texas Gulf Coast. I read a timely post by Steven Harris on his Collections 2.0 blog about on-demand purchasing and collection development in academic libraries. Steven brings up a lot of good points about the major issues facing just-in-time acquisitions:

Opposition from faculty regarding "their" allocations being spent on this type of purchasing mechanism

Workflow issues -- how do we implement such a service and integrate it into our existing workflows?

How does on-demand purchasing fit into our collection development philosophy and existing criteria for purchasing materials?

Will we feel pressured to buy materials which are out-of-scope?

Although I am just starting out in the collection development "world", I've already been involved in discussing these same issues at my library. My A.D. is advocating for a purchase on-demand program, and admittedly, I was reserved at first. How does this fit into an academic library's mission to have a well-rounded, balanced collection meeting several different audiences' needs? We are hiring a new ILL librarian in the next month and I am charged to develop such a program with this person. I've encountered the same questions in my discussions with my A.D. and in the reading I've done, which Steven asked in his blog post,mentioned above. One in particular that struck me was his reluctance to start a program due to the workflow issues. At my library, we've decided to create an entirely new relationship between ILL (which here we call IDS for Information Delivery Services) and Acquisitions (which currently have very little to do with each other), developing a workflow which is transparent to the user, but integrates a purchase on-demand request into the IDS workflow. The biggest challenge or obstacle which I foresee is budgeting -- how do you budget or allocate for something new like this? How much money do we think this program is going to cost us? Who should be in charge of the budget? Will it be Acquisitions (who will actually purchase the materials and eventually process them) or IDS (who will make the recommendations for purchase according to a criteria set up in advance)? Do the Acquisitions folks have a stake in what is purchased or does IDS have the last say? What about the librarian liaisons to departments?

While overwhelmed and intimidated by such an idea at first, I think the program has potential, for the very same reasons Steven mentioned in his post. The number one reason being, of course, that we must be more aware of what our actual user needs are as opposed to what we think they are. A purchase on-demand program can respond very well to this need, especially if worked into the ILL workflow, with input from both ILL, Acquisitions, and Collection Development librarians and staff.

May 16, 2008

I was excited to learn in yesterday's All-Staff meeting that our IT department is planning on doing away with our sorry old Intranet and replacing it with a brand spankin' new wiki. Using wikis as internal document management tools is a great idea. Our web development team has been using a wiki to store meeting minutes, agendas, comments, resource links and other documents for almost two years now and it works fabulous. A couple of things I have learned from that experience is to make sure that everyone gets the training they need to use the darn thing. IT seems to think everyone should be born with technology savvy capabilities, but most people aren't inclined that way, or at least not without a bit of practice first. Second, make sure everyone understands the concept of wikis: all participants can collaborate -- that means you can edit and you can add and you can delete. Unless you want everyone to participate with full rights, that means thinking through who has what rights to what content. On an intranet, that can be sensitive, so its wise to think through all the possibilities. I'm working out the details for a collection development/acquisitions wiki and need to figure out logistics:

Who needs access to what content and at what level?

What documentation do I want on the wiki?

Will there be sensitive information on the CD wiki?

What kinds of CD resources do I need to include for the liaisons?

What kinds of forms would be helpful?

Should I supply a vendor page? What information would be useful?

Should it be available to faculty?

Will policy information go here?

Should I have links to reports or statistic pages?

What about budget information?

At least I have a start. Work begins this summer. We shall see how fast it progresses...

May 13, 2008

I have been ruminating for the past week on how to develop a comprehensive profile of our academic faculty. I have been on this campus for the past six years, and was an undergraduate here, so I know quite a bit about the major stakeholders on campus. What puzzles me is the lack of focus in our library on reaching out to these constiuencies and getting more input regarding library collections and services. Well, I guess that is what I'm here for. I'm beginning to realize (and its a bit of a "duh" moment for me) that one of the major reasons for pulling me into this position isn't because of any wonderful fuzzy feelings about my management style or administrative abilities. I think they want me to schmooze. Its finally come to management's (I feel like Samson on Carnivale) attention that we need to develop relationships. That we cannot continue to do business the same old way and expect our budgets to keep shrinking and still make everyone happy using the same old formulas and uneasy alliances. In fact, I am getting the distinct feeling that it is what they want me to do. And that is not a problem for me. I'm confident I can work proactively with the faculty and address their concerns, but I'm also feeling a sense of "wow, why haven't we done this before?" or "I can't believe we aren't doing this now!" and a somewhat sinking feeling of "..ohmigod, why did this happen this year!".Today we had a meeting to discuss our electronic resources purchases (and, even thought it is called an "evaluation" meeting, it was most...decidedly...NOT) and our new library faculty kept saying things like, "we need to do more promotion" and "why don't we ask the faculty if they use this" and I sat there, next to the person I am about to replace, and thought about all the little things that could have been done to develop relationships on this campus...but weren't. No one had any answers to questions about what databases our faculty and students were using for research. We know what we are teaching in classes, but have not asked the faculty to give us information about the resources they want their students to use. So, I don't think, in the end, it will be about schmoozing, per se, but taking the time to ask tough questions (both in and outside the library), find out faculty's concerns about the library and ask all the librarians who are involved in working with faculty (whether it is instruction, reference, IT, access services, serials, etc.) to brainstorm and do outreach every way they possibly can. I will be here to provide guidance, coordination and give them the tools and resources to do this, but it cannot possibly be just a one person job.